2026 INSC 139 Page 1 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2026

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.16254 of 2025)

J. Muthurajan & Anr.

…Appellants

Versus

S. Vaikundarajan & Ors.

...Respondents

With

Civil Appeal No. of 2026

(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16880 of 2025)

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J .

Leave granted.

2. Orchestrating the dissolution of a business empire

built by the father, the children resorted to arbitration,

conciliation and litigation to go their independent ways with

their share of the pie, as is common in families with

multiplying numbers and proliferating assets. Two out of the

four siblings found an amicable partition through

Page 2 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

arbitration. The two remaining, along with their families are

grappling with each other for an equitable partition of the

huge assets and the vast properties amassed over the years.

The respective families are represented by their eldest, the

brothers, Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan who along with

their immediate kin stakes equal claim to the assets, left to

their joint share in the earlier arbitration and those

accumulated thereafter. Vaikundarajan group relies on a

Conciliation Award, strongly refuted by the Jegatheesan

group, who took recourse first to arbitration, which failed

and then to litigation. Assailed herein is a judgment which

confirmed the rejection of a suit filed by the Jegatheesan

group, allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

1

. We refer to the parties by

their names and the documents from Civil Appeal @SLP (C)

No.16254 of 2025.

3. Differences simmering for some time, surfaced in the

year 2018 and Vaikundarajan group asserts that on a

request made by Jegatheesan, their half-brother Ganesan,

acted as a Conciliator to bring about a settlement by a fair

1

For brevity, ‘The CPC’

Page 3 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

partition. A Partition Deed termed Kaithadi Baga Pirivinai

Pathiram

2

was drawn up with the entire assets included in

two Schedules. The division, alleged to be as per custom,

was made by Jegatheesan with Vaikundarajan at the first

instance choosing Schedule ‘C’ and the remaining Schedule

‘A’ left to Jegatheesan. The parties agreed by putting their

signatures on the KBPP, the translated copy of which is

produced as Annexure P-1 dated 31.12.2018.

4. The Conciliation Award drawn up by Ganesan, their

Conciliator/half-brother is produced as Annexure P-2 dated

02.01.2019. While Jegatheesan group accepts and admits

their signatures on the KBPP, they maintain that it was just a

tentative draft, not intended to be acted upon without further

deliberation; especially since the document had to be

stamped & registered to confer it the status of a partition

deed. Jegatheesan also denies having made the division,

and the group in one voice denies that there was ever a

conciliation and opposes the Conciliation Award as one

fabricated, without their knowledge and to which they were

never parties. The Conciliation Award was an afterthought,

2

For brevity, ‘the KBPP’

Page 4 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

alleges Jegatheesan group; that document itself having been

prepared far later to their group having resiled from the

KBPP, which deed itself tilted the scales substantially in favor

of the Vaikundarajan group. The fabrication was also

intended to thwart any attempt of the Jegatheesan group to

have an equitable partition by resort to legal remedies,

either through arbitration or by litigation. The suit now

rejected was initiated by the Jegatheesan group having

failed in their attempt to initiate an arbitration as also their

attempt to abruptly end the proceedings initiated by

Vaikundarajan group to execute the Conciliation Award.

5. Sh. Gopal Shankaranarayanan and Sh. V. Prakash,

learned Senior Counsel appeared for Jegatheesan group,

the appellants/plaintiffs and Sh. Mukul Rohatgi and Sh.

Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appeared for

Vaikundarajan group, the respondents/defendants.

6. Sh. Shankaranarayanan, took us through the

communications immediately after the KBPP, to contend that

Jegatheesan had objected to the partition as per the KBPP at

the first instance and sought for an arbitration as was done

before. The correspondences do not indicate a conciliation

Page 5 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

having been carried out in accordance with Part III of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

3

as it existed then.

None of the requirements as is mandated under Sections 61

to 74 of the Act of 1996 have been followed and the alleged

Award is passed behind the back of Jegatheesan group as is

evident from the documents on record. It is pointed out that

the so-called Conciliation Award surfaced long after the

dialogue commenced with respect to the KBPP; which was

resiled from by the Jegatheesan group since it was not an

equitable partition, making it highly suspect. Though the

Jegatheesan group was unsuccessful in initiating an

arbitration and putting an abrupt end to the execution

proceedings, this Court preserved their rights which

enabled them to initiate the present suit challenging the

KBPP; as arbitrary and not one intended to be acted upon

and the Conciliation Award; as one vitiated by fraud. It is

pointed out from the recitals in the document dated

02.01.2019 that it is prepared on 31.12.2018, which is belied

by the fact that some of the members admittedly signed it on

an earlier date. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that

3

For brevity ‘the Act of 1966’

Page 6 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

there was no cause for rejection of the suit at the threshold,

especially when the plaint cannot be rubbished as having

set up no cause of action nor is it barred by any law or

vitiated by any of the other grounds found in Order VII Rule

11 of the CPC and not in the least is vexatious. A compilation

of decisions is placed before us on the principles regulating

consideration of an application under Order VII Rule 11, the

inadequacy of the remedy under Section 47 of CPC, the law

on partition deeds and conciliation awards as also to canvas

the contention raised on fraud which vitiates every

proceeding and renders any decree, award or order, a

nullity

7. Sh. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel takes us to the

specific provision of Section 61 and argues that the minute

Vaikundarajan pleads a custom, of one of the parties

dividing the partible assets into two separate schedules and

the other party given the first choice to take one, there can

be no application of Part III. There is no Conciliation Award

passed under the Act of 1996 and also considering the plea

of the Award set up, being vitiated by fraud, there is no

status of an Arbitral Award conferred on it to avail the

Page 7 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

remedy of execution akin to that from a decree. It is also

pointed out that the execution proceedings in which the

appellants have filed objections under Section 47 of the CPC

have been clubbed with the suit, for joint trial. The suit was

necessitated since, Ganesan the so called Conciliator was a

necessary party in the resolution of the dispute based on the

challenge raised against the so-called Conciliation Award;

who was not a party to the conciliation and hence was

outside the scope of Section 47 of the CPC.

8. Sh. Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel at the outset

points out that there are two admitted facts which the

Jegatheesan group cannot wriggle out of. All the members

of their group have put their signatures to the KBPP, which is

a lengthy document; a deliberate action involving

considerable time for the mere execution, especially since it

has been signed on all the 308 pages by the several

members. The document discloses the two Schedules and

the division of assets which include, running industrial

concerns, valuable shares, vast tracks of immovable

property, mining leases and so on. None of the family

members, who put their signature to the document can now

Page 8 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

contend that they were not aware of the division or the

assets they would be entitled to, on its execution. The

second admitted fact, according to Vaikundarajan is that it

was Jegatheesan who first went to Ganesan to conciliate;

seriously disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Jegatheesan.

9. Yet again, Sh. Rohatgi forcefully argues that the very

initiation of the suit is an abuse of process since the

appellants had failed in three attempts before Courts, to

wriggle out of the conciliation. The observations in the

decisions are binding inter partes and disable the appellants

from initiating a suit challenging the KBPP, which, read with

the Conciliation Award is a decree, possible of execution

under Section 36 of the Act of 1996; upheld by this Court and

remedy left to raise objections, only in the execution

proceedings. The attempt to initiate arbitration had failed,

which forecloses such right; finding Annexure P-2 dated

02.01.2019 to be a Conciliation Award under the Act of 1996.

A further attempt was made through a revision filed, to

frustrate the remedy of execution, which was rejected by

the High Court with a reasoned order affirmed by this Court

Page 9 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

by dismissal of the SLP filed against that order. The

execution thus is pending, and the appellants have filed

their objections thereat. Without pursuing their remedy

permitted by this Court, the attempt is again to challenge

the KBPP and the Conciliation Award by a freshly instituted

suit which has been found by the Trial Court and the High

Court to be not possible under Clauses (a) and (d) of Order

VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

10. In addition, it is contended that the present attempt

also falls foul of Section 47 of the CPC and is in turn an abuse

of process of law. Part III of the Act of 1996 and the

provisions therein, are read over to urge that if the parties

have agreed to a settlement and the Conciliator has

endorsed the terms of the settlement it takes the character of

an Award under the Act of 1996 which is a deemed decree

capable of being executed under Section 3 6, taking

recourse to the remedy under the CPC. The KBPP and the

Award are inseparable and read together, it takes the form

of a decree capable of execution by either party. The only

possible remedy against it is under Section 34 of the Act of

1996, which having not been availed of till date, the

Page 10 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

execution has to proceed seamlessly. The contention that

despite having affixed their signatures in the KBPP, they did

not read it and hence is not enforceable, are mutually

destructive and per se dishonest. Insofar as the ground of

abuse the learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and Others v. Shrimant

Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle

and Another

4, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali

(Gajra) D. Thr. LRs and Ors.

5 and Rajendra Bajoria and

Ors. v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors.

6 The learned Senior

Counsel also took us through the decisions inter partes to

contend that the contentions taken in the suit and arguments

addressed before this Court, have been negated earlier,

which binds the parties who were agitating the very same

cause in the earlier instances too.

11. Sh. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would take us to

the communications addressed after the KBPP was executed,

to contend that though Vaikundarajan had specifically

referred to Ganesan and efforts taken by him at the instance

4

(2024) 15 SCC 675

5

(2020) 7 SCC 366

6

(2022) 12 SCC 641

Page 11 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

of Jegatheesan, it has not been categorically denied in the

response made. It is reiterated that the remedy now

available is only to pursue the objections under Section 47

of the CPC, which the appellants have resorted to. The

reliefs prayed for in the objection and suit are pointed out to

argue that they are similar and it would only lead to

multiplicity of litigation and possibly conflicting orders. The

attempt is only to stay the Execution Proceedings and

pursue the suit so as to further delay the process. Reference

is specifically made to Electrosteel Steel Limited v. Ispat

Carrier Private Limited

7

and MMTC Limited v. Anglo

American Metallurgical Co. Ltd.

8

to contend that the

remedy under Section 47 is a wholesome one which alone

can be pursued at this point. The translation of the document

dated 02.01.2019 is also seriously challenged, with another

translation which indicates that the recital in Tamil is to the

effect that “final deed dated 31.12.2018 was prepared”.

12. The dispute between the two groups, represented by

the two brothers, boils down to how the KBPP dated

31.12.2018 and the so-called Conciliation Award dated

7

(2025) 7 SCC 773

8

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2328

Page 12 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

02.01.2019 are to be construed. The Vaikundarajan group

asserts that the only possible mode of construction is to read

it together, which gives it the status and effect of a

conciliation award under Part III of the unamended Act of

1996. The Jegatheesan group insists that there was no

conciliation and the so-called Award dated 02.01.2019 is a

fabricated document and the KBPP is vitiated by reason of

undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation under

which it was executed, also resiled from immediately after

finding the partition to be unequal and inequitable. The very

fulcrum of the arguments of the Vaikundarajan group is

based on the earlier litigation which according to them

restrict the remedy of the appellants; the Jegatheesan

group, to contest the execution filed under Section 36 of the

Act of 1996. Hence, it is imperative that we look at the

earlier decisions of the High Court of Madras which, inter

partes, have attained finality by the dismissal of the SLPs

filed, in which orders this Court made certain reservations

with respect to rights of the appellants. The binding nature

of the decisions of the High Court and the escape valve

Page 13 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

provided through the liberty reserved by the High Court or

this Court would in fact decide the questions raised herein.

13. After the KBPP dated 31.12.2018 was executed by all

the members of the two groups, there occurred a series of

correspondence between the two brothers regarding the

partition. It is to be immediately noticed that, as admitted by

both the parties, all the members of the two families did not

put their signature on a particular day or on the day shown

in the deed. In fact, the admission is to the extent that the

signatures were put before and even after the date shown

on the KBPP, by some members of both the families.

Jegatheesan group also pleads in their suit that some of their

family members were abroad between 29.12.2018 and

02.01.2019. This is refuted on the specific plea that they had

affixed their signatures prior to their going abroad. It is also

pertinent that Vaikundarajan’s assertion is of a conciliation

by Ganesan at the instance of Jegatheesan, the latter

disputes it. There is neither any such communication

exchanged placed on record nor a substantiation of the

procedure under Part III of the Act of 1996 resorted to. The

contention is attempted to be raised on the basis of the

Page 14 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

veiled reference to Ganesan and his intervention in the

matter by Vaikundarajan, which is not specifically disputed

by Jegatheesan, persuading us to draw inferences. The

document dated 02.01.2019 from the recitals therein leave a

lot to be desired, especially with respect to the statement of

all the executants having signed the KBPP in the presence of

the Conciliator.

14. On 14.01.2019, Jegatheesan emailed his brother

Vaikundarajan accusing him to have occasioned financial

crisis in the businesses. Jegatheesan hence suggested

parting of ways by an equitable division of the assets.

Vaikundarajan did not reply to the same and Jegatheesan

followed it up with a communication on 23.01.2019 where he

specifically raised the issue of the KBPP dated 31.12.2018,

admittedly signed by himself and his family members. He

claimed that such execution was only at the instance of

Vaikundarajan. It was also alleged that the division was not

at all fair and equitable which they have realized after

deliberating on the division effected. The partition deed

dated 31.12.2018 was expressly revoked by the said letter.

This was responded to by Vaikundarajan by a

Page 15 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

communication dated 24.01.2019 wherein he spoke of a

request having been made through the elder half-brother

Ganesan and also pointing out certain disputes with respect

to the operation of accounts of the running concerns. It was

stated in unequivocal terms that the partition has already

been carried out by the deed of 31.12.2018, which however

was not referred to in the first communication of Jegatheesan

dated 14.01.2019. The said communication ended with a

request that if Jegatheesan decided to have the partition as

per the KBPP, before the end of the year, Vaikundarajan was

willing. Jegatheesan replied through Annexure P-6 dated

05.02.2019 refuting the statements made by Vaikundarajan

and seeking an arbitration by a retired Judge of this Court

who had earlier acted as an Arbitrator in settling the

disputes in the family. This was replied to by Annexure P-7

dated 18.02.2019 wherein the mediation through Ganesan

and the partition having been completed by execution of the

deed, was reaffirmed. The request for an arbitration by a

named retired Judge of the Supreme Court was specifically

declined asserting that there is nothing more to be done

since the partition stood concluded as on 31.12.2018. This

Page 16 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

was contested by Jegatheesan in his reply dated 09.03.2019.

Again, a request was made to share the complete details of

the assets so as to effectuate an equitable partition which

was replied to by Annexure P-9 dated 17.03.2019.

15. It has to be observed with emphasis that the

Conciliation Award of 02.01.2019 was not referred to by

Vaikundarajan in any of these communications despite the

emphatic references to intervention of Ganesan and the

KBPP. Having reached a stalemate Jegatheesan group issued

a notice through an Advocate, Annexure P-10 dated

28.03.2019, requesting arbitration through a named retired

Judge of this Court. The request was declined by Annexure

P-11 dated 12.04.2019, by the Advocate of the

Vaikundarajan group wherein for the first time the

proceeding dated 02.01.2019 was referred to and

contended that it has the status and effect of an Arbitral

Award under the Act of 1996.

16. Jegatheesan group hence approached the High Court

under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 for appointing an

Arbitrator which petitions were heard alongwith O.A. No.

543 of 2019 which sought an injunction restraining the

Page 17 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

Vaikundarajan group from giving effect to the KBPP; all

rejected by Annexure P-16. After noticing the facts as also

the KBPP and the Conciliation Award, reference was made to

the admitted execution of the KBPP and it was observed that

if there is a challenge to the same on the ground of coercion

then the remedy would be to seek a declaration that the

KBPP cannot be effectuated. The plea of fraud was found to

be general and vague since admittedly KBPP was signed by

the appellants. It was categorically held in paragraph 19 that

if the partition deed is not a result of conciliation proceeding

then the document is in settlement of the disputes in the

family, as per the customs and practice prevailing in the

community. The learned Judge found that the absence of

stamping or registration of KBPP was not very significant,

since then, it has the trappings of a family arrangement. The

conclusion was that if the execution of the deed was on

account of undue influence, coercion and

misrepresentation, the document is only voidable which has

to be set aside in the manner known to law, ‘by the Civil

Court after trial’(sic). On the other hand, if it was the result of

conciliation proceedings, it was held that the same could be

Page 18 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

assailed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, wherein the

question of insufficient stamp duty and registration could

also be agitated.

17. We cannot but find that the remedy of the appellants to

challenge the KBPP or the Award was not foreclosed by the

judgment of the High Court. What stood foreclosed is the

initiation of arbitration, that too on the assumption that the

documents of 31.12.2018 & 02.01.2019 together constitute a

Conciliation Award. An SLP was filed, the order in which is

produced as Annexure P-18, wherein despite refusing

interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,

the appellant was left with ‘liberty to work out the remedy in

accordance with law’(sic).

18. The appellants then approached the Madras High

Court with three revisions to strike out the proceedings in

EP No. 61, 62 and 63 of 2019 filed before the Principal

District Judge, Tirunelveli, seeking execution of the

conciliation award. The said revisions were heard together

and dismissed by Annexure P-20 Order, which essentially

followed the earlier decision in Annexure P-16. The learned

Single Judge expressed hope that the dispute having arisen

Page 19 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

between close family members, there could be mediation,

to facilitate which a Mediator was appointed on the request

of Vaikundarajan group. It was also observed that if the

mediation fails, Jegatheesan group would be entitled to

raise all issues before the Executing Court. An SLP filed

against the said order also stood rejected by Annexure P-21

which again made a caveat that ‘none of the observations

made in the impugned judgment shall hamper the Executing

Court in deciding the matter on its own merits’(sic). Hence,

based on the contentions left open to be decided by the

High Court and the liberty reserved to avail remedies in

accordance with law, at the earlier point, we are of the

opinion that the challenge against the KBPP and the Award is

still at large.

19. It cannot be assumed for a moment that what was

intended by Annexure P-21, the rejection of the SLP against

the judgment rejecting the prayer to strike off execution

proceedings as such, would confine the agitation of such

claims before the Executing Court alone. If the Executing

Court finds that the KBPP is not a result of conciliation and

does not constitute an Award under the Act of 1996 then

Page 20 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

necessarily, it would be open for the Vaikundarajan group

who stands by the KBPP to take remedies for enforcement of

the same, even as a family arrangement; in which event it

cannot be said that the rights of the Jegatheesan group

would stand fully precluded. The remedy against the KBPP

cannot be left unresolved, especially when liberty was left

to challenge it in a Civil Court.

20. The essential question the High Court considered at

the first instance, rejecting the plea for arbitration, was as to

whether the KBPP and the document of 02.01.2019, together

make out an award; an executable decree under Section 36

of the Act of 1996 or whether it is a partition deed or a family

arrangement, the last in view of absence of stamping &

registration. It is hence, the High Court held that the

challenge against the KBPP could be made before a Civil

Court or application filed under Section 34 of the Act of

1996, depending on the nature of challenge. The remedies

were thus left open by the High Court itself in Annexure P-

16, which reservation was affirmed by this Court while

rejecting the SLP.

Page 21 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

21. We cannot but notice that on two aspects the High

Court fell into a serious error, which assumes relevance,

considering the liberty left to the appellants. The first error

was in finding the allegation of fraud to be without basis for

reason of the admitted execution of the KBPP. Though it was

argued vigorously that both the KBPP and the Award are to

be read together, it can be so done only if it is found that the

conciliation had proceeded under Part III of the Act of 1996

and culminated in an Award as contemplated under Section

73 of the Act, giving it the status and effect of a Settlement

Agreement under Section 74.

22. We cannot but notice that the contention taken by the

Jegatheesan group from the inception and in the present

suit, against the KBPP and the Award are distinct and

different. While the execution of KBPP is admitted, the

agreement was revoked by the Jegatheesan group after a

few days. The contention against KBPP is that the appellants

did not get enough time to go through the same and they

were made to execute on undue influence, coercion and

misrepresentation. Only after a studied deliberation on the

division of assets, it was found that the partition was tilted

Page 22 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

substantially in favour of the Vaikundarajan group. It is not

uncommon that in family arrangements, the younger

members succumb to the dictate of the eldest, and on

further deliberation and introspection, especially in

partitions, raise disputes on the inequitable division. Here,

we have to reiterate pertinently that the remedy to file a civil

suit against the KBPP was reserved to the appellants even at

the first instance.

23. Insofar as the award dated 02.01.2019, we cannot but

notice that the earlier communications between the brothers

did not at any point refer to a conciliation having been

initiated and concluded under Part III of the Act of 1996,

though reference was made to an intervention by the elder

half-brother, Ganesan. We are also not able to find any

documentary substantiation of the conciliation having been

initiated and carried out under Part III of the Act of 1996.

Even if we accept the contention of the Vaikundarajan group

that a settlement arrived at between the family members

could also be an Award under the Act, as per sub-section (2)

of Section 73; the Settlement Agreement, which is essentially

the KBPP has not been authenticated by the Conciliator as is

Page 23 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

mandated under sub-section (4) of Section 73. The

document dated 01.02.2019 produced as Annexure P-2 is

later to the KBPP and is not signed by any of the parties to

the settlement. In this context we also observe that in

Annexure P-2, the so-called Conciliator alone has put his

signature to the document, categorically stating that the

KBPP was signed in his presence by all the members. This

has to be considered in juxtaposition with the admitted

position that all the members did not sign it on 31.12.2018

and some of them were abroad till 02.01.2019, that is a plea

specifically taken in the present plaint.

24. We may not be mistaken as finding the Award to be

not one issued under the Act of 1996, but it raises serious

questions regarding the Award, which grounds are pleaded

in the suit. The specific contention taken against the Award

is that the same is vitiated by fraud, being a fabricated

document; created only to give the KBPP the sheen of an

Award under the Act of 1996, created behind the back of the

Jegatheesan group and to their detriment.

25. The other error in Annexure P-16 is that referring to

the custom, it was held that the implied consent by reason of

Page 24 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

execution of the KBPP results in a finding of waiver of the

provisions of Part III specifically, Section 61-74 of the Act of

1996. We are unable to accept the said finding especially

since there is no partial waiver, of the provisions,

contemplated. Yet again we also notice the contention

raised by the appellants that if custom is resorted to there

can be no application of Part III of the Act of 1996, which too

we cannot subscribe to. On a reading of Section 61, any

conciliation between two parties brought about by following

the procedure in Part III of the Act of 1996 would definitely

get the status and effect of an Award under the Act of 1996

unless the parties have agreed otherwise; which agreement

should be expressly for the exclusion of Part III of the Act of

1996, despite a conciliation having been proceeded with

and concluded. Here, the custom asserted is also claimed to

have been on the intervention of Ganesan, as a Conciliator.

Hence, if it is found to be an award of conciliation then there

is no exclusion of Part III pleaded and if it does not have that

status, then there is no application of Part III.

26. The remedy of an arbitration has been foreclosed but

only subject to a challenge to the KBPP which the plaintiffs in

Page 25 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

the present suit assailed on the grounds of undue influence,

coercion and misrepresentation. The challenge to the

Award under Section 34 would be available if it can be

termed ‘an Award’ under the Act. The specific contention of

the plaintiff/appellants is that though execution of the KBPP

is admitted, which agreement has been resiled from later,

the Award is a fabricated document, clearly the fraud

employed to undermine and frustrate the rights of the

plaintiffs/appellants.

27. The Trial Court considering the application under

Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC and the High Court

considering the challenge against the rejection of the plaint

fell into an error in reading the KBPP together with the

Conciliation Award, as contended by the respondents,

deeming it to be a Conciliation Award; against which is the

challenge raised by the appellants in the suit. Both the

Courts categorically found that the KBPP cannot be resiled

from, the plaintiffs having affixed their signatures to it and

there is no sustainable allegation of fraud, except the

appointment of the Conciliator having been projected as a

cooked up, fraudulent theory. The Trial Court went to the

Page 26 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

extent of finding in Annexure P-31 that the allegation of

coercion to sign the KBPP cannot be accepted since there

was no threat at knifepoint or a fear of death, alleged in the

plaint and hence, there is no fraud perpetrated on the

plaintiffs, appreciated as valid by the High Court too. It was

also found that in the earlier rounds, the High Court had

clearly found that a plea of fraud and misrepresentation

cannot be entertained. A reading of the plaint, according to

the impugned orders, would indicate that having lost in the

earlier round of litigation upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

an illusory cause of action is attempted to be raised on the

allegation of fraud and misrepresentation without any

specifics on that count. The Trial Court also found fault with

the simultaneous filing of a suit, when on the very same

averments and grounds an objection was filed under Section

47 of the CPC in the execution petitions.

28. The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court

holding that the Conciliation Award though challenged as

fraudulent and fabricated, there could be no such contention

since admittedly the execution of the KBPP was not denied

or disputed. The earlier finding regarding the KBPP possible

Page 27 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

of being construed as a family arrangement settling the

disputes and differences within the family in accordance

with the customs and practices prevailing in the community

was emphasized. Finding the provisions of Part III of the Act

of 1996, specifically Section 61-74 having been waived, the

High Court also extracted from the decisions of this Court to

find the plaint liable to be rejected on five grounds. The five

grounds were:- (i) the admission of execution of KBPP,

justifying the ground taken of abuse of process of law, (ii)

the dismissal of the application under Section 11 of the Act of

1996 and the revision under Section 115 of CPC, validating

the contention of constructive res judicata, (iii) the

simultaneous proceedings in the suit and objection under

Section 47 of the CPC being an abuse of process of law, (iv)

the suppression of the proceedings under Section 47 and (v)

the refusal to set up a claim for cancellation of the KBPP and

the under valuation of the suit; the contention of suppression

and under valuation, having not been argued before us by

the respondents at all.

29. A reading of the plaint would clearly indicate that the

grounds taken against the KBPP and the Conciliation Award

Page 28 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

are distinct and different. The plaint averments categorically

challenge the contention of the defendants that the KBPP and

the document of 02.01.2019 are to be read together and

construed as a Conciliation Award. No doubt, if read

together, the two documents constitute a Conciliation

Award. But the averments in the plaint resist such

construction especially since the document dated

02.01.2019 is challenged on the ground of it having been

drawn up behind the back of the defendants and the

conciliation said to have been carried out by Ganesan

having not actually taken place. The reliance on the custom

alleged; of one of the parties carrying out the division of the

assets, permitting the first election to the other and then to

take up the remaining partible assets, is vehemently denied

by the plaintiffs. The KBPP is challenged as one drawn up

unilaterally by the elder brother. The plea is also that the

members of the younger brother’s family executed the same

under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation,

which is a matter of evidence. We are unable to agree with

the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the High Court

that a ground of coercion could be urged only if the younger

Page 29 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

brother’s family was faced with a life threat. As we found,

especially within the family, the coercion would not be very

explicit and it could even arise from an apparent feeling of

subservience or a manifest obedience to the elder’s

opinion, which are all matters to be substantiated in

evidence and it cannot be merely brushed aside or

rubbished only on the ground that there is no case set up of

a physical threat. The grounds of coercion, undue influence

and more importantly misrepresentation, resulting in an

inequitable partition, cannot be peremptorily rejected while

considering an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the

CPC.

30. We reiterate that the KBPP and the document of

02.01.2019 are challenged on two distinct grounds. The

KBPP on the allegation of coercion, undue influence and

misrepresentation, resulting in inequities, while the

document of 02.01.2019 is challenged as a fabricated

document created as an afterthought to give the KBPP the

status and effect of an Award. We also cannot accept the

grounds of simultaneous proceedings in the suit and the

objection under Section 47, to be an abuse of process of law,

Page 30 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

for more than one reason. The execution has been filed on

the specific ground that the KBPP and the document dated

02.01.2019 read together is a Conciliation Award having the

status and the effect of an Arbitral Award under Section 74

which also is possible of execution as a decree under

Section 36 of the Act of 1996. If the objection raised by the

judgment-debtors in the Execution Petition under Section 47

is accepted by the Executing Court, that the document

dated 02.01.2019 is not brought about after a proper

conciliation proceeding, then the execution cannot proceed.

That would not, however, enable the Executing Court to

look into the challenge raised against the KBPP on the

specific grounds hereinabove detailed. Whether the KBPP is

a valid document, sustainable as a partition deed or a family

arrangement, cannot be examined by the execution Court

and for that, the only possible mode is a suit properly

instituted.

31. We hence find the order of the Trial Court as

confirmed by the High Court, resulting in the rejection of the

plaint to be egregiously erroneous in law. We are of the

opinion that there is a prima facie cause of action disclosed

Page 31 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

in the suit and it cannot be termed vexatious or an abuse of

the process of law. The cause of action as seen from the

above discussion is a real one and not illusory or fictional.

The factual averments, the legal grounds and the relief

sought are not meaningless nor can it be said at this stage

that the suit is bound to fail. The decisions relied on by the

respondents have no application. We also do not look at the

decisions placed on record by the appellants regarding

fraud, the validity of a Conciliation Award or the

construction of a Partition Deed or of a family arrangement,

lest we unwittingly make any observation regarding the

facts of the case. We make it clear that whatever

observations we have made here, are only prima facie in

nature and would not govern the final adjudication in the

suit, except insofar as our finding that the remedy of the

appellants to challenge the KBPP and the so-called

Conciliation Award are not foreclosed , which is

unexceptionable. Based on the decisions in the earlier

rounds of litigation, there can be no plea taken of a

constructive res judicata insofar as the independent

challenge now raised against the KBPP and the document

Page 32 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

dated 02.01.2019 is permitted by the High Court in the

earlier rounds and liberty left by this Court too in both the

proceedings.

32. We also find no reason to look into the plea of multiple

proceedings and conflicting orders being passed especially

noticing Annexure P-27 wherein the suit and the objection

under Section 47 of the CPC were clubbed together to be

tried by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli before

whom the execution petitions were pending. We set aside

the impugned orders of the High Court and the Trial Court,

allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 and

restore the plaint to the files of the Principal District Court,

Tirunelveli, which rejected the plaint after the transfer by

Annexure P-31. The suit shall be tried alongwith the

objection raised under Section 47 of the CPC.

33. Before we part with the case, we have to observe that

after arguments were concluded and the judgment

reserved, on the next day, Sh. Niranjan Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents herein, made

a submission before us that there could be a mediation. We

directed the learned Counsel representing the appellants

Page 33 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

also to be present in the afternoon, when the suggestion of a

further mediation was fiercely opposed by Sh. Gopal

Sankaranarayanan and Sh. V. Prakash, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellants, that having been

already attempted and failed. In unequivocal terms, we

informed Mr. Reddy that if the respondents withdrew all the

contentions regarding the KBPP and the document dated

02.01.2019, still, there could be an arbitration which would

relieve the parties of further litigation delaying the process

of partition especially since the businesses are remaining

with the Administrator, as directed in the revision against

the execution proceedings.

34. We make it clear that it would be open for the parties

to make the plea of relegating them to an Arbitration when

they appear before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli

before whom the suit and the execution proceedings are

pending. We make it clear that the plea could only be of an

arbitration and not a mediation, in which event, the

respondents/judgment-debtors/defendants will, on

affidavit, agree and undertake to withdraw all the

contentions regarding the KBPP and the document dated

Page 34 of 34

CA @ SLP (C) No. 16254 of 2025 etc.

02.01.2019, so as to initiate an arbitration afresh dehors the

two contentious documents, which shall be facilitated

through any suitable Arbitrator, mutually agreed upon by

the parties.

35. The appeals are allowed with the above reservation of

an arbitration made possible and that of the findings herein

not governing the final adjudication of the suit and the

objections under Section 47; except the rejection of the plea

of constructive res judicata which plea cannot be now raised

by the respondents/defendants.

36. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

………….……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 10, 2026.